WPA/28109/2025 of ABHIJAN GHOSH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

14.01.2026 Court No. 02 Item No.14 (Suvendu) WPA 28109 of 2025 Abhijan Ghosh -Versus- Union of India & Ors. Mr. Debasish Kundu …..for the petitioner Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha Mr. Shaunak Ghosh ….for the UOI 1) In terms of order dated 15 th December, 2025 a report dated 1 st January, 2026 signed by the Commandant (Estt) on behalf of Inspector General, Border Security Force, South Bengal Frontier is filed along with supporting medical documents and same is taken on record. 2) Learned advocate representing the petitioner has submitted that in connection with selection of the petitioner for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) petitioner had to participate in Detailed Medical Examination on 20 th November, 2025 when petitioner was declared unfit on the ground of tremors in hands. Petitioner preferred review and in Review Medical 2 Examination conducted on 24 th November, 2025 petitioner was declared unfit due to sandal gap deformity in right foot. It is submitted that when petitioner was declared unfit in Detailed Medical Examination for one reason he ought not to be declared unfit in Review Medical Examination for a different reason without assigning the reason for which he was declared unfit in Detailed Medical Examination. In addition thereto, it is submitted that X-ray report does not support the view expressed by the medical experts in Review Medical Examination report dated 24 th November, 2025. According to the petitioner, he should not have been declared unfit since sandal gap and Halux Varus are not same deformity. 3) On the contrary, learned advocate representing Union of India has made submission based on Review Medical Examination report dated 24 th November, 2025 and the report furnished on behalf of respondent authority dated 1st January, 2026. 4) Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking note of the report furnished on behalf of respondent authority, it appears that on different reasons 3 petitioner was declared unfit in Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination, i.e. petitioner was declared unfit on the ground of tremors in hands in Detailed Medical Examination whereas in Review Medical Examination petitioner was declared unfit on the ground of sandal gap but not on the ground of tremors in hands. 5) Question arises for consideration is whether deformity pointed out by the medical experts in Review Medical Examination is covered by the deformities as delineated in the relevant guidelines for declaring a candidate medically unfit or not. 6) Halux Varus is one of the disqualifying deformities as per clause B of the relevant guidelines. 7) In the report filed today it is stated that sandal gap and Halux Varus are identical deformity. X-ray report dated 22 nd November, 2025 which is annexed to the report filed today suggests it is a case of sandal gap deformity. 8) This Court is not a medical expert. Therefore, issue involved in this writ petition needs to be decided based on opinion of medical experts. As it is found that sandal gap and Halux Varus are identical deformity and 4 Halux Varus is one of the deformities for which a candidate needs to be declared unfit Court finds no incongruity in Review Medical Examination report. 9) Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10) Writ petition stands dismissed. 11) There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 12) Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)